Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the special right would be allowing a gay couple to ignore the morality clause and not allowing a hetero couple to do the same. They could have gotten married and challenged the clause on that ground, but they haven't done so yet. Once the Supreme court rules on DOMA it is very likely they will be able to get married and have their marriage recognized by the feds. I can't imagine this morality clause will overrule a federally recognized marriage.
The clause would still stand though. A bit different scenario, but similar concept. I was messing around with a married woman once and I had to stop sleeping over when she had her kid bc they always ended up telling the dad. I couldn't even give her hickies until the divorce was finalized.
Until gay marriage is legalized in Texas (or federally), the fact remains that only a straight couple would have that option... so they're not asking for special rights, they are only asking to compensate for their LACK of rights. Does that make sense?
Until gay marriage is legalized in Texas (or federally), the fact remains that only a straight couple would have that option... so they're not asking for special rights, they are only asking to compensate for their LACK of rights. Does that make sense?
Marriage is not the issue here though.
The woman posted on Facebook that the judge went after her because she's gay.
That is not correct. The judge went after her because she broke a rule in her divorce decree.
All they have is the Facebook posting and the divorce proceedings.
No one involved on either side will consent to an interview..neither the people nor their lawyers.
The woman posted on Facebook that the judge went after her because she's gay.
That is not correct. The judge went after her because she broke a rule in her divorce decree.
All they have is the Facebook posting and the divorce proceedings.
No one involved on either side will consent to an interview..neither the people nor their lawyers.
Well, then I guess we can't speculate as to the motivations (on either side). I'm not arguing why the decree was placed, or what the motivations were behind it - I am only arguing the lack of equality in terms of her options here.
The woman posted on Facebook that the judge went after her because she's gay.
That is not correct. The judge went after her because she broke a rule in her divorce decree.
All they have is the Facebook posting and the divorce proceedings.
No one involved on either side will consent to an interview..neither the people nor their lawyers.
That's not what she claimed. She claimed the judge expressed disapproval at her lesbian "lifestyle" and that the judge then inserted the clause because he knew it would put her into a corner given she could not marry another women.
I don't see any indication that either partner wants to get married to each other, or do any sort of adopting of anyone.
Again, whether we have any indication that they would marry had they the option to do so is outside the scope of my point, but, would you not consider this quote from the dallasvoice article somewhat of an indication that they would marry if given the opportunity:
“Our children are all happy and well adjusted. By his enforcement, being that we cannot marry in this state, I have been ordered to move out of my home”
Until gay marriage is legalized in Texas (or federally), the fact remains that only a straight couple would have that option... so they're not asking for special rights, they are only asking to compensate for their LACK of rights. Does that make sense?
It makes perfect sense and if I were gay and living in TX that is the exact ground I would challenge this clause on. Add in the fact that the article gives the impression that most people don't even know about the clause most of the time. However, they have not chosen to get married and haven't indicated any desire too. I can't say I blame them. I mean, why get married if it isn't recognized?
They won't be able to challenge this on the ground that it treats them any differently than a hetero couple though. If they really want to challenge this and throw a monkey wrench into the process they should get married and challenge it that way. That's the legal strategy I would use anyway.
That's not what she claimed. She claimed the judge expressed disapproval at her lesbian "lifestyle" and that the judge then inserted the clause because he knew it would put her into a corner given she could not marry another women.
Again..her opinion and there is no mention of marriage. You people inserted marriage into this thread.
Again..her opinion and there is no mention of marriage. You people inserted marriage into this thread.
This seems like a mention of marriage:
“Our children are all happy and well adjusted. By his enforcement, being that we cannot marry in this state, I have been ordered to move out of my home”
“Our children are all happy and well adjusted. By his enforcement, being that we cannot marry in this state, I have been ordered to move out of my home”
It makes perfect sense and if I were gay and living in TX that is the exact ground I would challenge this clause on. Add in the fact that the article gives the impression that most people don't even know about the clause most of the time. However, they have not chosen to get married and haven't indicated any desire too. I can't say I blame them. I mean, why get married if it isn't recognized?
They won't be able to challenge this on the ground that it treats them any differently than a hetero couple though. If they really want to challenge this and throw a monkey wrench into the process they should get married and challenge it that way. That's the legal strategy I would use anyway.
Texas doesn't recognize gay marriage.
That one came out when a gay married couple moved to Texas (they got married in another state) and tried to get a divorce. They couldn't get a divorce in Texas because Texas didn't recognize the marriage.
They fought it in court and lost and they appealed. It might be going on 3 years now. They keep losing appeals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
